[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070604140533.65e25286.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:05:33 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: menage@...gle.com, serue@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dev@...ru, xemul@...ru, vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
cpw@....com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
mbligh@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers
> Would it then make sense to just
> default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's
> value?
Which could well be empty, which in turn puts one back in the position
of dealing with a newborn cpuset that is empty (of cpus or of memory),
or else it introduces a new and odd constraint on when cpusets can be
created (only when there are non-exclusive cpus and mems available.)
> An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets
> could not be applied to namespaces...
I wasn't paying close enough attention to understand why you couldn't
do it in two steps - make the container, and then populate it with
resources.
But if indeed that's not possible, then I guess we need some sort of
option specifying whether to create kids empty, or inheriting.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists